Universities Must Uphold Pluralism, Not Suppress It
by Andy Knight, Feodor Snagovsky, and Jared Wesley
Universities serve many functions in society, none more important than promoting and protecting pluralism: the principle that multiple viewpoints and the participation of diverse groups will lead us to a greater public good.
A cornerstone of liberal democracy, pluralism is an alternative to violence. It is grounded in the belief that dialogue and debate based on evidence and reason are superior to exercising brute force and the notion that “might makes right.”
Recent protests and encampments on university campuses regarding the war in Gaza have brought the importance of pluralism into sharp relief. As institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge, and the development of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making, the core responsibility of universities is to foster environments in which diverse perspectives can not only coexist but be respected and rigorously examined.
The Common Ground initiative is built on those principles. We help Western Canadians understand who they are and who they see themselves to be. We cannot understand each other unless we converse. Our individual and collective view of self is multifaceted. That’s what makes our communities vibrant and worth preserving.
On university campuses, pluralism means creating spaces where students and faculty can engage with a variety of viewpoints without fear of hate, violence, retribution, or marginalization. Pluralism is not an ancillary concept; it is the entire reason universities exist. Our campuses are protected as bastions of free expression and academic freedom for this reason.
This is why we are so troubled by the actions of our own university administration on May 11 and since. The president summoned the Edmonton Police Service to clear a pro-Palestinian encampment in our own quad. By every account, this protest was peaceful; despite the president’s estimation, it was constitutionally-protected.
Rather than promoting pluralism, the office of the president chose the default of violence against its own students, faculty, and community members based on faulty logic and weak evidence, which mostly boil down to an undisclosed surveillance video and the possession of camping supplies at a tent-based protest. This response against students and faculty who were not only exercising their Charter rights, but actually doing what the University trains its members to do, is in direct conflict with the very reason that universities exist.
Pluralism is challenging. Especially in a climate of raw, passionate emotion, bad faith takes on the motives and arguments of “the other side” are easy to come by. Labeling the University’s community partners as outsiders is one such error by the president. One of the main threats to pluralism is this sort of political polarization, a world where interlocutors are not opponents to be respected and persuaded but rather enemies to be abhorred and vanquished; dislodged from the public square altogether. Anyone seriously interested in real, durable social change has to be willing to engage with people who disagree with them and to bring those people along with them as the world around them changes.
In this respect, we are concerned, not only because of the specific events of May 11, but with the broader trend towards authoritarianism and the intolerance of difference that the president’s ’s actions reflect and encourage. This is not a partisan issue or one that only affects certain ideological camps. The peaceful promotion of diverse viewpoints, especially those that we may disagree with, is the most important job that universities have.
The Office of the President of the University of Alberta has failed in this mission. The person who heads that Office ought to be held accountable for this failure, up to and including the nonrenewal of his mandate.
Yet, the essence of any university transcends the actions of any single individual. The University of Alberta is a vibrant, diverse community of students, scholars, faculty and support-staff who, collectively, serve as one of the last bastions of pluralism in our province.
While it saddens and angers us that threats to our mission now come from within as well as outside our campus, it should not diminish our resolve as a University to stand up for those values, like pluralism, upon which this institution has been built. It is up to our community to ensure challenges like these instead strengthen it.
Kudos to the authors of this analysis.
Too many of us have lazily subscribed to the group think that says a) Israel can do no wrong and b) any criticism of Israel is an act of antisemitic terrorism which must be excised immediately.
This type of violence is what silences many students around discussions on genocide and colonialism. We are told, both directly and indirectly, that if we speak up, we will face brutal institutional violence. This, in turn, prevents us from publishing on important social issues, attending conferences, and engaging in critical discussions about colonial violence in classrooms and textbooks and on campus.
How can the President oversee social innovation in this context? These issues need to be opened up for rigorous intellectual evaluation. Right now, the President does not have the capacity to lead change in this direction. In fact, he has failed miserably. Where can students and intellectuals safely protest and challenge oppressive violence, if not on campus, where they work, play, and refuse injustice?
The University needs to reevaluate its mission statement, along with the values and principles guiding the President's decisions on crisis management. Many of us who are part of the institution do not support what we saw earlier this spring.